Abstract
Common lawyers have focused too much on rights talk and especially on constitutionally entrenched Bills of Rights in critiquing Anti-Terrorism legislation enacted by democratic common law countries since September 11, 2001. This paper illustrates the ways in which rights talk acts as a distraction from fundamental principles of legality when Anti-Terrorism laws are considered, arguing that embedded rights play three roles antithetical to sustaining governance in accordance with fundamental principles of legality: the roles of paper tiger, Trojan horse, and narcotic.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Paper version not known
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
